Discursive Approaches to Public Policy: Politics, Argumentation, and Deliberation

  • Anna Durnova
  • Frank Fischer
  • Philippe Zittoun
Chapter
Part of the International Series on Public Policy book series (ISPP)

Abstract

Over the last two decades, the so-called discursive paradigm has emerged in both Europe and the USA to analyze policy and grasp policy processes differently. Rejecting the dominance of rational choice theory and condemning the illusion of an objective knowledge for and on policy, this paradigm draws inspiration from the “linguistic turn” in philosophy and the social sciences and builds on constructivist perspectives in social inquiry. The “discursive” approach pays particular attention to the subjectivity of actors; the forms of knowledge these actors assemble; and, in particular, the multiple interpretations they deploy to create meaning. This chapter presents three aspects: the basic acknowledgment that policy is about political argumentation, that argumentation is a deep epistemological issue that changes mainstream objectivism, and that argumentation requires placing interpretation and emotion back into the research agenda.

References

  1. Ahmed, S. 2004. The Cultural Politics of Emotion. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Arendt, Hannah. 1958. What is authority? In Nomos I: Authority, ed. C. Friedrich, 81–112. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bachrach, Peter S., and Morton S. Baratz. 1963. Decisions and non-decisions: An analytical framework. American Political Science Review 57(3): 641–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barnes, Marianne. 2008. Passionate participation: Emotional experiences and expressions in deliberative forums. Critical Social Policy 28(4): 461–481. doi:10.1177/0261018308095280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bevir, M., and R. A. Rhodes. 2010. The state as cultural practice. OUP Oxford.Google Scholar
  6. Bourdieu, P., and R. Christin. 1990. La construction du marché, Le champ administratif et la production de la “politique du logement”, Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales Année. Vol. 81. Numéro 1, pp. 65–85.Google Scholar
  7. Clemons, R. S., and M. K. McBeth. 2001. Public policy praxis: Theory and pragmatism, a case approach. Prentice-HallGoogle Scholar
  8. Crozier, Michel, and Erhard Friedberg. 1977. L’acteur et le Système. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
  9. Dryzek, J. S. (2001). Legitimacy and economy in deliberative democracy. Political theory, 29(5), 651-669.Google Scholar
  10. Durnová, A. 2013a. A Tale of ‘Fat Cats’ and ‘Stupid Activists’: Contested values, governance and reflexivity in the Brno Railway Station controversy. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 1–17.Google Scholar
  11. Durnová, A. 2013b. Governing through intimacy: Explaining care policies through ‘sharing a meaning’. Critical Social Policy 33(3): 494–513. doi:10.1177/0261018312468305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Durnová, A. 2015. Lost in translation: Expressing emotions in policy deliberation. In Handbook of critical policy studies, eds. F. Fischer, D. Torgerson, A. Durnová, and M. Orsini. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  13. Fischer, F. 1980. Politics, values, and public policy: The problem of methodology, Westview Press.Google Scholar
  14. Fischer, F. 2003. Reframing public policy: Discursive politics and deliberative practices. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fischer, F. 2009. Democracy and expertise: Reorienting policy inquiry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Fischer, F. 2012. Debating the head start program: The Westinghouse reading scores in normative perspective. In Public policy, vol. 1, ed. Hupe Peter and Hil Michael. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  17. Fischer, F. 2015. In Pursuit of Usable Knowledge: Critical Policy Analysis and the Argumentative Turn. In Handbook of Critical Policy Studies, eds. Frank Fischer, Douglas Torgerson, Anna Durnova, Michael Orsinin. Edgar Elgar.Google Scholar
  18. Fischer, F., and J. Forester. 1993. The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Fischer, F., and H. Gottweis. 2012. The argumentative turn revisited: Public policy as communicative practice. Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fishkin, James S. 1991. Democracy and deliberation: New directions for democratic reform, vol. 217. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ Press.Google Scholar
  21. Fonow, M. M., & Cook, J. A. (1991). Beyond methodology: Feminist scholarship as lived research: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Forester John (eds), Critical Theory and political life, MIT Press, Cambridge, 1985.Google Scholar
  23. Foucault, Michel. 1963. Naissance de La Clinique; Une Archéologie Du Regard Médical. Galien Histoire et Philosophie de La Biologie et de La Médecine. Paris: Presses universitaires de France.Google Scholar
  24. ———. 1966. Les Mots et Les Choses Une Archéologie Des Sciences Humaines. Bibliothèque Des Sciences Humaines. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
  25. ———. 1971. L’ordre du discours. Editions Flammarion.Google Scholar
  26. ———. 1975. Surveiller et Punir: Naissance de La Prison. Bibliothèque Des Histoires. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
  27. Freund, J. 1986. L’essence du politique. Paris: Dalloz.Google Scholar
  28. Fung, A., and E. O. 2003. Deepening democracy: Institutional innovations in empowered participatory governance, vol. 4. Verso.Google Scholar
  29. Goodwin, J. 2001. Passionate politics, emotions and social movements. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gottweis, H. 2006. Argumentative policy analysis. In Handbook of public policy, eds. J. Pierre, and B.G. Peters, 461–480. Thousand Oaks: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gottweis, H. 1998. Governing molecules: The discursive politics of genetic engineering in Europe and the United States. MIT press.Google Scholar
  32. Gottweis, H. (2003). Theoretical strategies of poststructuralist policy analysis: towards an analytics of government. Deliberative policy analysis. Understanding governance in the network society, 247–265Google Scholar
  33. Gottweis, Herbert. 2007. Rhetoric in policy making: Between logos, ethos, and pathos. In Handbook of public policy analysis. Theory, politics, and methods, ed. Frank Fischer and G.J. Miller. Boca Raton: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  34. Gusfield, Joseph. 1981. The culture of public problem. Chicago: Chicago University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  35. Habermas, Jürgen. 1987. Théorie de L’agir Communicationnel. Vol. L’espace du politique. Tome 1: Rationalité de L’agir et Rationalisation de La Société. Paris: Fayard.Google Scholar
  36. Hajer, M. 1993. Discourse coalition and the institutionalization of practice: the case of acid rain in Britain. In The argumentative Turn in Policy analyzis and Planning, ed. F. Fischer, J. Forester, p. 43–76. Duke University.Google Scholar
  37. Hajer, M. A., and H. Wagenaar. 2003. Deliberative policy analysis: understanding governance in the network society. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Hallin D.C. 1985. “The American news media: A critical theory perspective” in Forester John, Critical theory and public life, 121–46, MIT Press.Google Scholar
  39. Hawkesworth, M. E. (1988). Theoretical issues in policy analysis. SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  40. Jann, W., and K. Wegrich. 2003. Phasenmodelle und Politikprozesse: der policy cycle. Lehrbuch der Politikfeldanalyse 2: 106.Google Scholar
  41. Jasanoff, S. 2006. Ordering knowledge, ordering society. In States of knowledge. The co-production of science and social order, ed. S. Sheila Jasanoff, 13–45. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  42. Jasper, J. M. 2006. Emotions and the Microfoundations of Politics: Rethinking and Means. In: Clarke, S., Hoggett, P. & Thompson, Emotion, Politics and Society. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 14–30.Google Scholar
  43. Jasper, James M. 2011. Emotions and social movements: Twenty years of theory and research. Annual Review of Sociology 37(1): 285–303. doi:10.1146/annurev-soc-081309-150015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Jobert, Bruno. 1994. Le Tournant Néo-Libéral En Europe. Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
  45. Jobert and Muller (1987), L’Etat en action, Paris, PUF, 1987Google Scholar
  46. Jones, Brian D., and Frank R. Baumgartner. 2005. The politics of attention. How government prioritizes problems. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  47. Kingdon, John. 1995. Agendas, alternatives and public policies. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  48. Larsen, Lars T. 2010. Framing knowledge and innocent victims. Europe bans smoking in public places. Critical Discourse Studies 7(1): 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lasswell, Harold. 1942. The relation of ideological intelligence to public policy. Ethics 53(1): 25–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lasswell, H. 1951. The policy orientation. In The policy sciences, eds. H. Lasswell, and D. Lerner. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Lasswell, Harold D. 1971. A pre-view of policy sciences. Houston: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  52. Latour, Bruno. 1990. La Science Telle Qu’elle Se Fait. Anthropologie de La Sociologie Des Sciences de Langue Anglaise. Paris: La découverte.Google Scholar
  53. Lindblom, Charles. 1958. The science of muddling through. Public Administration Review 19(2): 78–88.Google Scholar
  54. Lindblom, Charles. 1965. The intelligence of democracy: Decision making through mutual adjustment New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  55. Lindblom, Charles. 1968. The policy-making process. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice- Hall.Google Scholar
  56. Lindblom, Charles. 1979. Still muddling, not yet through. Public Administration Review 39(6): 517–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Lindblom, C.E., and D. Cohen. 1978. Usable knowledge: Social science and social problem solving. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Majone, Giandomenico. 1989. Evidence, argument and persuasion in the policy process. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Martin, Emily. 2001. The woman in the body: A cultural analysis of reproduction. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  60. Mayntz, Renate. 1993. Policy Netzwerke und die Logik von Verhandlungssystemen. Policy Analyse. Kritik und Neuorientierung”. Politische Vierteljahresschrift 34: 39–56.Google Scholar
  61. Newman, Janette. 2012. Beyond the deliberative subject? Problems of theory, method and critique in the turn to emotion and affect. Critical Policy Studies 6(4): 465–479. doi:10.1080/19460171.2012.730799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Ney, S. 2009. Resolving messy problems: Handling conflict in environment, transport, health and aging policy. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  63. Orsini, M., & Wiebe, S. M. (2014). Between Hope and Fear. Comparing Canada: Methods and Perspectives on Canadian Politics, 147.Google Scholar
  64. Parsons, Wayne. 2003. Public policy: An introduction to the theory and practice of policy analysis. Northampton: Edward Elgard Publishing.Google Scholar
  65. Peters, B.G. 2004. Review of “Reframing public policy: Discursive politics and deliberative practices”. Poltiical Science Quarterly 119(3): 566–567.Google Scholar
  66. Rein, M. 1976. Social science and public policy. New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  67. Schmidt, V.A. 2008. Discursive institutionalism: The explanatory power of ideas and discourse. Annual Review of Political. Science 11: 303–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Schram, S., and P.T. Neisser, eds. 1997. Tales of state: Narrative in contemporary U.S politics and public policy. New York: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  69. Schubert, K., and N. Bandelow. 2003. Lehrbuch der Politikfeldanalyse. Oldenbourg: Oldenburg Verlag.Google Scholar
  70. Scriven, M. 1987. Probative logic. In Argumentation across the linerw of discipline, eds. F.H. Van Eemeren et al. Amsterdam: Foris.Google Scholar
  71. Simon, Herbert A. 1945. Administration behavior. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  72. Stenner, P. & Taylor, D. 2008. Psychosocial welfare: Reflections on an emerging field. Critical Social Policy, 28 (4), 415–437.Google Scholar
  73. Stone, D. A. (1988). Policy paradox and political reason. Addison-Wesley Longman.Google Scholar
  74. Sullivan, Helen, and Chris Skelcher. 2002. Working across boundaries: Collaboration in public services. Palgrave.Google Scholar
  75. Toulmin, S. 1958. The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  76. Torgerson, D. 1986. Between knowledge and politics: Three faces of policy analysis. Policy sciences, 19(1), 33–59.Google Scholar
  77. Wittgenstein, L. 1958. Schriften: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  78. Wittgenstein, Philosophische Untersuschungen, Suhrkamp Verlag KG, 2003.Google Scholar
  79. Yanow, D. 1996. How does a policy mean?: Interpreting policy and organizational actions. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  80. Zittoun, P. 2009. Understanding policy change as a discursive problem. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis 11(1): 65–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Zittoun, P. 2013a. Entre définition et propagation des énoncés de solution. Revue Française de Science Politique 63(3): 625–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Zittoun, P. 2013b. La fabrique des politiques publiques. Paris: Presses de Science Po.Google Scholar
  83. Zittoun, P. 2014. The political process of policymaking: A pragmatic approach to public policy. New York: Palgrave-McMillan.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anna Durnova
    • 1
  • Frank Fischer
    • 2
  • Philippe Zittoun
    • 3
  1. 1.University of ViennaViennaAustria
  2. 2.University of Kassel and Rutgers UniversityKasselGermany
  3. 3.LAET-ENTPEUniversity of LyonLyonFrance

Personalised recommendations